The hours of work fall out of the job description, not the
other way round.
fwiw I support exactly what the overview says in the extract
quoted below. Anything less is just an admin role, and we need
a stronger RFC series than that; I think we have forty years
of experience to justify that assertion.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-11-14 10:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. In the hallways this week, there were many discussions of what the RSE job was supposed to encompass and approximations of how many hours a week such a job would entail. For the latter, I heard "just a few", 10, 20, and 40, with job descriptions that I thought matched the numbers.
>> Given that this will be a major feature of Glenn's work, having people say what they think the job entails and their estimate of the hours per week such a job entails would be useful. I spoke with people who supported each of the four above, and all of those people are on this mailing list.
>> For perspective, the overview says:
>> Although not yet cited in 5620bis, this proposal envisions an initial
> half-time appointment. Roughly one quarter time is required for
> regular duties: RFC Editor oversight, fielding questions from staff,
> email and other forms of engagement with the community, liaison, and
> meetings. An additional quarter time is necessary for handling
> unexpected and transient events, and to make progress in the many
> areas mentioned in this proposal.
>> I think that is a reasonable model. I also think that 10 hours per week with the same description minus "to make progress in the many areas mentioned in this proposal" is also reasonable if that is what the community wants.
>> Others?
>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>